Sammy Dale Joles v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
63A01-1704-CR-813
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Sammy Dale Joles, a home-improvement supplier, contracted with Dennis Johnson (over 60) for work exceeding $10,000 and misrepresented material contract terms; victim lost $34,524.00.
- Charged with level 5 felony home-improvement fraud (Sept. 2016); pled guilty Feb. 28, 2017; sentencing March 28, 2017.
- PSI placed Joles in high risk to reoffend, documented prior theft and financial-exploitation convictions (including against elderly), substance abuse history, prior failures to appear and extraditions, and minimal remorse.
- Trial court found guilty plea and PTSD as mitigators but concluded aggravators substantially outweighed them and imposed six years executed plus $34,524 restitution.
- Joles appealed, challenging (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing (failing to find certain mitigators), and (2) whether the six-year sentence is inappropriate under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Joles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to find/work-ability, willingness to pay restitution, and dependent hardship as mitigators | Court properly exercised discretion; record did not compel finding those mitigators | Court should have credited ability to work, willingness to pay restitution, and hardship on dependents | No abuse of discretion; trial court permissibly declined to find those mitigators |
| Whether six-year executed sentence is inappropriate under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | Sentence appropriate given serious financial loss to elderly victim, defendant's criminal history, high risk to reoffend, lack of remorse | PTSD, guilty plea, willingness to pay restitution, and family hardship warrant lesser or community-based sentence | Sentence not inappropriate; defendant failed to meet burden to show it is excessive in light of offense and character |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sets abuse-of-discretion framework for sentencing and when remand is required)
- Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (clarification on reh’g)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on defendant to show sentence inappropriate under Rule 7(B))
- Dowdell v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1999) (imprisonment does not automatically create a mitigating undue-hardship finding)
- Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court not required to accept defendant’s proposed mitigators or assign weight urged by defendant)
- Benefield v. State, 904 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (discussion of dependent hardship and when it constitutes a special circumstance)